But we like you. So don’t leave.
Oh, now I feel like Sally Field!
Thanks Gato. I like you guys a bunch too.
NPR should just tweet something critical of Musk, then he’ll ban them and eliminate the “controversy”.
What percentage of Elmo’s funding comes from the government?
SpaceX and Tesla should have the “Government Funded” label.
Anyone that thinks NPR is solely or even well funded by the gummint hasn’t been through a pledge drive and you should call now and you will get this handsome tote bag!
SpaceX certainly.
Agreed, and I normally wouldn’t say that Tesla is, but given EV subsidies, I’m sure that more than 1% of Tesla’s revenue originated with the taxpayer. That’s not counting all the other subsidies and tax breaks a large company like Tesla generally enjoys.
If NPR merits it, then so does Tesla.
That’s from 2015, definitely much much higher now.
2021:
Winning a competitive contract to provide services is not a subsidy. That’s ridiculous.
Tax incentives to build factories. Subsidy. Free money in the form of development grants. Subsidy. Subsidy programs to promote the purchase of electric cars or whatever. The hint is in the name.
But offering your services to the government at a lower cost than your competition? Not a subsidy, and ridiculous to label it that.
Saying NPR should be “defunded” is even stupider than usual for those nitwits. If they’re choosing not to use a particular platform anymore, who gives a shit?!
I don’t even see how it should be controversial to people who would normally dislike NPR.
Right, and Musk companies received all those things. Money is fungible. All those subsidies free up money for Musk companies to spend on other things, thanks to the US and state taxpayers. The hypocrisy is enormous that Musk should rail against government funding while sucking so hard on that tit.
The post that you replied to didn’t mention the word subsidies, so I’m not sure what your point is trying to make.
Even if Musk’s companies didn’t get subsidies to build factories or development grants as well as programs promoting the purchase of electric cars, it would still be government funded, which is what was said.
And then the fact that they are actually highly subsidized to build factories and development grants and promotion of electric vehicles means that he does get subsidies.
So, please point at what was ridiculously mislabeled as a subsidy in what you replied to, thankyouverymuch.
The article doesn’t say that, nor does the post you responded to.
It claims Tesla, SpaceX, and SolarCity have “received billions of dollars from government loans, contracts, tax credits, and subsidies” and then goes on to list some of them.
There is one sentence, out of the entire article, that is either poorly written or just wrong that says the list of projects is from subsidies, but the actual descriptions indeed list them as federal/state loans, subsidies, contracts, grants, etc.
The post I replied to was a news story whose first line, displayed in the preview, is “Musk’s companies benefited from subsidies as recently as April, when SpaceX won a $2.89 billion contract from NASA.”
How are we supposed to interpret that sentence except as calling the award of the contract a subsidy?
Maybe by reading the article rather than just the first line?
Also: Agile hypocrisy!
I did read the article. Did you?
The story then goes on to list actual subsidies provided to other Musk companies, but it leads by presenting as subsidies the two SpaceX items, neither of which are subsidies.
Has the Boring Company made a single dime that didn’t come from grifting the government? Or more specifically from the government of Las Vegas since they thankfully haven’t yet found another locale stupid enough to fall for the “I’ve invented the subway, only much, much less efficient” spiel?
At least he’s not Jared. 